S. CHATTERJI J. ( 1 ) -HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation it appears that the petitioner-company has challenged the actions of the corporation authorities regarding further demolition of work at premises No. 22, Prafulla Sarkar Street previously known as Sooterkin Street, Calcutta. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that under the order of Building Tribunal and strictly in terms of permission the petitioner had made reconstruction work but the corporation authorities demolished the major portion of building by exercising the power given under section 400 (8) of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1980 and the acts done and/or caused to have done by the Corporation authorities are irregular and illegal and this Court may grant such reliefs in the manner as indicated above. ( 3 ) THE writ petition is opposed by corporation authorities by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It is disclosed, inter alia, that the petitioner has taken steps contrary to the order of the Building Tribunal dated 24. 6. 87 and absolutely unauthorised constructions have been made and the corporation authorities had taken steps consistent with the provisions of law and the writ petition is otherwise misconceived and the same may be rejected. ( 4 ) THE attention of this Court has been drawn to the report of the Special Officer-Engineer filed on 28. 7. 92. The Engineer-Special officer has filed his report indicating, one, alia, that there are serious damages from 1st floor to 2nd floor where floors and ceiling slabs have been totally dismantled and heavy damages have been made. Those slabs are hanging dangerously and in precarious condition, and it may cause further damage totally and if it by chance slips, the inmates and the occupants will suffer irreparable injury. The report further runs that the old building has been repaired by the owner with a combination of masonry and R. C. re-construction. The owner has repaired the old building by way of reconstruction without changing the dimension and character. The report further runs that the old building has been repaired by the owner with a combination of masonry and R. C. re-construction. The owner has repaired the old building by way of reconstruction without changing the dimension and character. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING all the aspects of the matters, this Court finds that the petitioner has tried to secure the building whereas the stand taken by the corporation authorities is that in the name of the alleged repair, the writ, petitioner is trying to raise unauthorised construction without having any building plan and the steps taken by the petitioner are contrary to the order of the building Tribunal. ( 6 ) IN view of the materials on record and in view of the report of the Special Officer-Engineer and in the light of the judgment of the Building Tribunal, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner has repaired the existing building without changing the original structure, there is no scope for violation of the terms of the Building Tribunal. But in the instant case it is submitted by the Corporation Authorities which is fortified by the report of the Special Officer that new Pillars have been raised and new constructions have been made. The observation that there is no change of the dimension and the character of the building has no meaning and the expressions are ( 7 ) CONSIDERING such slate of affairs the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the writ petitioner to make a proper representation before the Calcutta Municipal Authorities and the said authorities will dispose of the same within 6 weeks from the date of filing the representation and by giving a chance of personal hearing and by passing on speaking order as to granting of permission if it appears that the construction so far made do not offend any provisions of the Municipal Building Laws and such decision will not permit the petitioner to undertake any irregular and illegal acts. The representation would be disposed of in the light of the judgment of this Court and also in the light of the order of the Building Tribunal as indicated in the writ petition. ( 8 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. All parties concerned to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment and order on usual undertaking. Application disposed of.